Horizontal structures though often constructed and governed by the few, are made for the many, to be experienced intimately, directly, for the many. Vertical structures are for the few, to be seen by the many. The gendered analogies remain resonant, but I will stick with ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ for precision. The capitalist elite have governed America and stewarded their assets and corporations from the high castle of skyscrapers and signaled importance with their penthouse aeries, while the division of labor to their their ‘philanthropist’ wives who reigned over culture and civic standing via patronage of horizontal constructions like theaters, parks, and museums. While gendered labels are culturally reductive I will stick with ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal,’ but there is a precedent for them. The anthropomorphic phallocentrism of the city tower is a direct contrast to the underground, womblike presence of a major transit hub. One could as well call the future of Architecture ‘female,’ with the conceit that the male function of architecture is to consolidate and engineer life and ‘make a living,’ and the female to nurture, transport, and provide for life and its sustenance. The horizontal is the only real theater with anything substantial to say. Absent gimmicks like Dubai, the future - and present - of architecture is horizontal. Squarely into the third decade of the 21st century, this obsession with height looks and feels childish. I followed the building of the world’s tallest structures with anticipation, seeing narratives of progress in who could set a capstone at the highest crest. Apple Park in Cupertino, a massive circular HQ similar to the Pentagon in scope and horizontality.Īs a child, I was obsessed with skyscrapers, with the grandeur and prestige of height, the towering ambition signaled by these towers, of their extreme cost and the delicacy of their engineering.